Don’t miss out. Stay Informed. Get EcoWatch’s Top News of the Day.

Email

By Ilana Solomon

Yesterday, Congress pulled a rusty, old tool from the bottom of its toolbox. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Rep. Camp (R-MI) introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, otherwise known as “fast track,” which could facilitate passage of deeply flawed trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact with limited public and Congressional input. If fast-track legislation is approved by Congress, the President would be able sign the TPP and then send it to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote—with no room for amendments and limited floor debate. If that sounds backward, it’s because it is.

The TPP agreement could devastate communities, our climate and our environment. It would open the floodgates for the expansion of natural gas exports and fracking across the U.S. Graphic courtesy of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

First, fast track is an outdated and inappropriate mechanism. It was first passed in 1974 when trade pacts focused on traditional trade issues, like tariffs and quotas. Today, trade pacts like the TPP cover a broad range of issues including the environment, investment, labor, government procurement, consumer protections and many more things we face in our everyday lives. It is therefore critical that Congress maintain its constitutional authority to oversee trade policy and ensure that trade pacts protect communities, workers and the environment before the pacts get finalized.

Second, fast track is undemocratic. After congressional approval, the President could submit signed trade pacts to Congress for an up-or-down vote within 90 days with all amendments forbidden and a maximum of 20 hours of debate. Even more atrocious is that it would actually allow the President to write legislation that would change U.S. laws to make them conform to the terms of the secretly negotiated trade agreement.

In other words, fast-track authority eliminates a critical constitutional check-and-balance structure that aids most other democratic processes. By stripping Congress of its ability to fully debate and amend the language of today’s all-encompassing trade pacts, fast-track authority renders Congress unable to ensure that trade negotiations result in agreements that benefit communities and the environment.

Third, it’s a risky endeavor that could help rubberstamp very harmful trade pacts such as the TPP. The TPP agreement could devastate communities, our climate and our environment. It would elevate corporations to the level of nations, thus allowing foreign companies to directly sue governments in private trade tribunals over laws and policies that corporations allege reduce their profits. It would also open the floodgates for the expansion of natural gas exports and, therefore, fracking across the U.S.

And the real kicker is that—despite these any many other consequences—there has been virtually no opportunity for public discussion of the trade pact, as no draft text has been publicly revealed. So Congress is actually voting on whether to quickly pass trade agreements it’s never even seen!

Now is the time we need a full discussion about the true costs of the TPP and other trade pacts—not a process to rush flawed deals through the finish line.

The bottom line is that fast track would set us up for failure. It’s critical that Congress has the ability to effectively oversee trade negotiations and ensure that the contents of our trade agreements protect our workers, communities and environment in the U.S. and abroad. The public and members of Congress have effectively been left in the dark for too long. Now it’s up to Congress to take the reins and oppose fast track. On behalf of the Sierra Club and our 2.1 million members and supports, I urge members to oppose this fast-track bill and retain their right to ensure that the U.S. trades responsibly.

Comments

I can’t imagine anything more likely to spark revolutions than the TPP, once people find out what they could do with it. What’s next a worldwide corporate constitution that wipes out ours?

Southernfink

Unbelievable that it has got this far, Obama the former senior lecturer in constitutional law and due process is secretly trying to cede US sovereignty to private enterprise, I have the rather strong impression that this is breaking his oath of office.

kenbefound .

Well I think that’s essentially what this is.

HoofHugs

It already exists, but the Senate never voted on it. It is the UN CBD that President Clinton signed on June 4, 1993 and it is being implemented through federal agency regulation.

Jim Young

I’d argue the opposite, it is not a worldwide “corporate” constitution (since the Senate has not ratified it), but is REGULATED for good or bad by different administrations “through federal agency regulation” (and interference for or against the intent of what the Convention on Biological Diversity intended). Seems the US would be able to just use it as non-binding goals and even go totally opposite the intentions with only public opinion providing some restraint, since nothing has been ratified.

What happens when the Senate actually ratifies (RAT-ifies, to me) the worst one (TPP), while still not approving the one most people would support (CBD)? How far and which way, can we expect the corporations to go once they can use an approved treaty to trump our constitution (and any other country’s), something no one would be able to do with the UN CBD in limbo land in the US?

I’d much rather have our Constitution protecting us from corrupt REGULATION “through federal agency regulation,”regarding the corporate interests, and, if any control was to be given to international agencies, I would very much favor those protecting the environment and biodiversity.

HoofHugs

Theoretically, were the CBD really about protecting biological diversity and the environment, then the science supporting the policies would be consistent with the scientific expertise published in journals on the specific sciences that involve molecular biology, genetics, population theory, and the history of climate change that has occurred over and over again including the 16 glacial and interglacial periods in the Pleistocene including the more rapid that previously occurring climate changes following the last major glacial period. What I find is the IUCN implementing human constructs that conflict with the constructs that nature has created. The entire native versus non-native species theory is based on limited research that may apply to some, not all islands but certainly not to the North America and other continents when species of animals travels from one continent to another across various land bridges that have existed during some phases of the Earth’s geological history. The presumptions that these people extrapolate based on a handful of species and attempt to generalize without collecting empirical data and ignoring the vast amount of peer reviewed literature that contradicts their theories while killing the careers of those that disagree with them is not my idea of the kind of leadership that ought to be determing the common good. I don’t consider Monsanto’s ability to get its GMO’s and GE’s seeds considered native plants while species that have been present in North America for millions of years. The best way to predict the future is to at least study and consider what has happened in the past and trying to get your mind around this should be second nature. The fact that one of the weater chanels programs claimed that there was no gravity in a New York river area defies the imagination. Were there no gravity, there would be nothing in the area that was not nailed down—gravity shifts due to atmospheric forces, but it does not disappear on this planet, so I am not impressed that a Harvard scientist could not find gravity.

Jim Young

I believe real science is a balance of thoughtful research and real scientists are always willing to leave room for evidence to the contrary of their theories, as long as they can be tested in unbiased research, and I’d add, published in peer reviewed journals. The documentary(?) I watched last night, http://www.americanaddictthemovie.com/, seems to indicated It goes a long ways towards confirming the corrupting influence of money that grossly distorts science, suppressing conflicting views. In the case of pharmaceuticals, it seems the reversal of climate science (97% vs 3% deniers) since there seems an even lower percentage of those against the corrupt seeming practices of “big pharma”. The movie makes the case somewhat, describing the Barbara Starfield study mentioned in the film. The wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Starfield, does not seem to mention the study she described in the movie.

I suspect big pharma is the most distorted area influenced by huge amounts of money, even bigger than energy/climate change, or GMO/GE. How are we supposed to have any confidence in the seeming monopolists that want to establish more patent and copyright control than ever over things we believe should not be monopolized, and definitely not kept in the dark about regarding safety, efficacy, privatization of, and distortion of supposed regulators that seem so vastly controlled (or gutted) by them? What other countries on earth would let them get away selling stuff they won’t at least label? This country seems the outlier among those who want to at least protect their citizens right to informed consent.

Though the struggle looks as daunting as civil rights, I’m inclined to support Lawrence Lessig’s Rootstrikers to start working on the problem of the corrupting affects of so much money spent on PR and intrusion into government, especially when the rules have been changed to give the worst offenders the greatest tax (and other) advantages. They use our own tax payer money against us, in addition to all the money they accumulate from what I consider so many other advantages.

For a simple starter, I’d like to see a Federal windfall tax on all the local or state tax breaks or incentives they have been given to further tighten their control over us.

issyco

Shades of GATT and NAFTa, the forerunners of this despicable piece of poppycock! The closer we grow, eat, manufacture, and live to our homes, the better!

issyco

Shades of GATT and NAFTA during the Clinton administration. That was the beginning of these so-called fair trade agreements. The closer we can grow, eat, manufacture and live to our homes the better! All these treaties do is hurt the people who care about eating healthy and living healthy!

Jim Young

Except this is far beyond those agreements regarding international (corporate) control over our laws. They pick the “arbitrators.”

HoofHugs

And owning your own land, owning hoofed animals, or having pets including dogs and cats. These treaties are loaded with so details that are not based on any proven scientific facts. Countries in Europe that ban the genetically modified foods that received legal status through the UN CBD Article 8 (h). This treaty was written for special interests that are invested in destroying our way of life. If anyone actually knew what was in this treaty, it would not have been debated in the Senate for 10 minutes let alone 10 months.

dancerboots

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress
From the Congressional Research Service:

Trade Promotion Authority
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)—formerly **fast track—is a statutory mechanism under which Congress defines negotiating objectives and consultative procedures for trade agreements, and authorizes the President to enter into reciprocal trade agreements governing tariff and non-tariff barriers. Under TPA, implementing bills for reciprocal
trade agreements are considered under expedited legislative procedures, that is, limited debate, no amendments, and an up-or-down vote. The expedited consideration is conditioned on the President observing certain statutory obligations in negotiating trade agreements, including notifying and consulting Congress. The purpose of TPA is to **preserve the constitutional role of Congress to regulate foreign
commerce in consideration of implementing
legislation for trade agreements that require changes in domestic law, while also bolstering the negotiating credibility of the executive branch by assuring that a trade agreement, once signed, will not be changed during the legislative process. TPA expired in 2007 and, as of this writing, has not been renewed by Congress.

The TPA is not outside the democratic process nor does it allow the President to legislate.

kenbefound .

This is simply not true. The Congress has NO say on what goes into the treaty. They can only accept or decline the treaty in it’s entirety. Here is a statement as Prepared by the staff of the Senate Finance Committee and Ways and Means Committee, “Preserves Congressional prerogatives and gives Congress the final say in approving trade agreements through procedures providing for an up-or-down vote on the final implementing bills WITHOUT amendment.” Do your homework before making such statements.

Jim Young

I think you are on the correct side but the levels of very careful, diplomatic, and rational sounding PR (so tame sounding compared to the normal RW saber rattling, doesn’t mean what they are trying to do isn’t incredibly more dangerous). I am very afraid of the corporate influence on the TPP (in intellectual property rights and financial services, if anything like our corrupted, barely regulated financial sector), and what it could do to destroy efforts to protect the environment (from disastrous climate change, most specifically).

Let’s see them sign up to ironclad Climate Protection closer to what was discussed at Copenhagen, instead of the atrocious actions displayed at Warsaw. Eyewash and further stalling (15 years now) is not going to cut it with very many of us.

I do realize Fast Track type approval does not guarantee final approval by the house and senate, but it comes so dangerously close that I wouldn’t want to give them the chance.

dancerboots

Senate Republicans put the White House and Senate Democrats on notice they intend to block Senate action on all trade related nominations including Commerce secretary until the president sends to Congress free
trade agreements for Columbia, Panama and South Korea.

At a news conference with reporters, Senate Minority Leader McConnell said this is about Jobs and the free trade pacts need to be sent to
Capitol Hill “as rapidly as possible.”

“Mr. President, go on and do what you say you are for,” McConnell said. “Get it on up here, get all three of them up here, and you won’t
have any trouble confirming people who are going to be put up for secretary of Commerce, which we know is open or any trade related
position that may come open that requires Senate ratification.”

McConnell announced he has 44 Republican signatures on a letter to the president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicating they won’t move forward on trade related positions that requires confirmation
until all three trade agreements are sent to congress.

The letter says, “We will use all the tools at our disposal to force action, including withholding support for any nominee for Commerce
secretary and any trade-related nominees.”

“To say that they are going hold up government basically until these trade agreements come up seems very short sighted to me,” Senate
Majority Leader Reid responded. “We are going to work with them in any way that we can. But trade agreements should stand on their own
merits, not be based on whether someone is going to be approved through the Senate.”

The administration has indicated it’s ready to send to Congress the trade agreement with South Korea, but needed more time to work on the Columbia and Panama free trade pacts.

dancerboots

The Congress of the United States will have to approve any trade deal, whether through a majority in both Houses (an “agreement”) or
through two-thirds of the United States Senate (a “treaty”). And both Houses will have to write and pass implementing legislation wherever the
agreements (or treaties) require changes in U.S. law.

The American presidential system is unlike political systems in almost every other country. Prime Ministers preside over the majority
party of legislative bodies. They derive their authority from leading the majority party. When they commit their countries internationally,
they almost always can guarantee the approval of their legislatures.
American Presidents, however, have no such authority. It is not unusual for them to lead political parties that are in the minority in Congress,in one or both Houses. After they negotiate and sign an international
agreement with foreign leaders, they have to negotiate with domestic legislative leaders who can oblige them to change the deal, going back
on their word with the Prime Ministers and Presidents of foreign countries.

When President Obama inherited from the Bush Administration three bilateral trade agreements requiring Congressional support, he spent years renegotiating terms before presenting them to Congress,even though they had been negotiated by a President when he possessed
fast track authority. President Obama has no such authority, is not likely to receive it, and is not likely to confront a Congress eager to anoint him a successful champion of free trade.

I’m afraid all the trade agreements are much more in line with what Republicans want, and that they will approve any and all, if they can just soft peddle their way into Fast Track (no matter how much they beg not to be thrown into that briar patch).

HoofHugs

Yes, that is why the Clinton administration put so many of these Fair or Free Traide Agreements in place

HoofHugs

President Clinton signed an updated re-ratified 1997 Internation Plant Protection Convention that did not go into full effect until 2005, so the changes in federal agencies and laws that were made in Congress to accommodate these treaties during the Bush administration were driven by the attempts of those who were involved in implementing law through international treaty to deliberately usurp federal laws or avoid Congressional and public scrutiny. While the Bush administration did not transorm itself to implement the policies set in motion by the Clinton administration, the Obama administration came in and began implementing them through federal agencies but without the public having any idea where and how laws never repealed no longer seem to apply in this country.

Harriet Heywood

The current discussion on TPP/Fast Track is really worrying me as its becoming a discussion of partisan politics. As soon as this happens, we are dead in the water. This issue needs to be addressed as a non-partisan issue if we are to successfully challenge it. We need to mount a campaign to get Republicans to oppose it, otherwise, it passes.